22 Comments
Dear readers,
Time for round two! In response to feedback, we’ve melded the new site and the old, bringing back the three-column format as well as the classic Blue and White color scheme (speaking of which, the magazine’s site has been spiffed up too). New features like your best comments and the “about us” blurb remain, and we’ve tried to keep the cleaner aesthetic of the original redesign.
Thanks to all for your constructive comments–you’re a tough crowd, but we’re happy that you care.
Yours,
Bwog Staff
Loading …
22 Comments
@beh it’s better, but not by much. I think it may be the serif font and the fact that its size is way too large. still missing old bwog.
@Anonymous is good enough. We shouldn’t be asking for more even though they say they “listen”, they’re the creators of this site and the ones that keep it running. If it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t have anything. No one will be able to please everyone. So this is like in ‘between’. Thanks for listening and for trying to please us all!
@way better Thanks bwog. I only wish that the page would resize to the browser- it’s just a tiny bit wider than I’d prefer, but I understand that people who maximize would want to be able to see more content. Just a thought.
@way better Thanks bwog. I only wish that the page would resize to the browser- it’s just a tiny bit wider than I’d prefer, but I understand that people who maximize would want to be able to see more content. Just a thought.
@i like it so there.
@was i the only one …who liked that the redesign’s background wasn’t white?
@yeah either go with all white, or bring back the cream tones. cream + columbia blue go together nicely.
@logo? is there anyway to bring back the old logo??
@SOOO much better! Thanks BWOG! :-)
@no. pretty, bwog, so pretty.
@much better I like this revised version much better. Thanks.
@Personally I think the text is too big. The nice element of the new design was that things looked crisp and tasty. Maybe it’s just my fetish for sans serif fonts.
Also, on Columbia kiosks the page is a bit too wide. Maybe it’s just the ones in Lerner, though.
@I'm still waiting for someone to outdo my giant vagina comment. Be there no poets amongst ye?
@sumaiya it’s better, but it still looks like something from the chemical engineering department.
@cub Love the return of the old color scheme, but I think the two columns actually worked better. As of now, the redesign is kinda useless for me because the columns overlap:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77919414@N00/259293443/
I’m on a PC, IE, 800×600 resolution.
@Q.R. 800×600? You know you can turn it up above that, right? Start-Settings-Control Panel-Display-Settings. Do you have a 9 inch monitor, or what?
@cub Small monitor and weak eyesight. And anyway, 800×600 is still the webdesign standard since 1024×768 is more popular for laptops, and plenty of people still use desktops. If you design for 800×600, your site will still be readable and useable in higher resolutions, but if you design for 1024×768 you’ll alienate everyone on a lower resolution with unreadability. It’s Webdesigning 101.
And no, I’m not in SEAS.
@Anonymous real internet nerds use 1280×1024 and above… kidding. 800×600 is a relic of the past, never to be supported again. How can anyone bear to look at something at that resolution nowadays?
@Q.R. Well, that’s admittedly a good excuse. I won’t admit that 800×600 is a web design standard anymore, though, ‘cos it ain’t. And I *am* in SEAS. Desktops at 800×600? Desktop screens are pretty uniformly higher-res than laptop screens.
And, not to agree with #13, but actually I browse on 1600 pixels wide. But now my eyes are going, so I guess I can sympathize a little.
@come on! Bring back the old logo!!!
@Ben So much better.But is the bubbly logo too much to hope for?
@Anonymous better! Although, why was the decision made to remove the bubbly logo? Also, perhaps it’s just my monitor and resolution (I’m too lazy to see if it changes for other resolutions), but the size of the third column, far right, is disproportionately larger than the left side’s column.
Maybe you need to have a static pixel width? It does look a tad bit wide when it is in a full window. Much better than the previous incarnation though.